Fomapan/Arista.edu Ultra 100-120: Pattern of small scratches, looking for culprit!

[Rolleiflexible]

No a lack of experience how to treat a regular film. I am not pleased with these kind of interferences on serious attempts to solve a film problem for one of our manufactureres.

Oh please.

I've developed film for decades. Tens of thousands
of rolls. Don't tell me I have no experience or that I
am impeding a "serious attempt" to help here. I'm not
an imbecile. I've never had these marks with film from
Kodak, Ilford, Adox, Efke, Agfa, or Fuji -- only with
Foma 200 in 35mm.

Get over your presumptions.

 

[Aurelien]

Keep cool guys

 

[RobertV]

Kodak, Ilford, Adox, Efke, Agfa, or Fuji -- only with
Foma 200 in 35mm.

NYC: Maybe you tried moon films in the past, I do not care. But when somebody is sqeeging films and comes with any reclamation of scratches, I am very sorry but this can not be serious then.

 

[Rolleiflexible]

NYC: Maybe you tried moon films in the past, I do not care. But when somebody is sqeeging films and comes with any reclamation of scratches, I am very sorry but this can not be serious then.

Gosh, Robert, what an idiot I am! We better
tell those stupid gits over at Ilford to revise
their advice to customers as well. See Step
15 (at page 11) of Ilford's guide to processing
black & white film, titled "Squeegee," found at
this URL,

http://www.ilfordphoto.com/Webfiles/200629163442455.pdf

where Ilford advises: "To remove any excess
water carefully run squeegee tongs or a clean
piece of chamois cloth down the length of the
film." (Now, I won't go even that far. I prefer
my fingers because skin is soft and I can feel
if something is on the film surface that might
scratch the negative.)

I am very sorry too, Robert, but either you or
Ilford have it wrong -- and my money is on
Ilford, and the weight of my own experience.

 

[RobertV]

I am very sorry too, Robert, but either you or
Ilford have it wrong

Yes, Ilford should replace/re-write that part because it takes the chance of scratches. Some films are more sensitive for it some less.

I will stop this useless conversation because it will not contribute to any usefull information about the main problem. Sorry.

 

[Rolleiflexible]

Yes, Ilford should replace/re-write that part because it takes the change of scratches. Some films are more sensitive for it some less.

I will stop this useless conversation because it will not contribute to any usefull information about the main problem. Sorry.

I will add that the marks I have observed, and
which have been shown in the photographs
posted by me and others in this thread, are not
consistent with scratches caused in processing
because they are very short, only a mm or so in
length, and not the longer lines one would expect
to see if grit were being dragged through the
emulsion after a rinse. (Which was why I suggested
earlier that someone try to examine the marks under
a microscope.)

But if you are right, and Foma's emulsion is that
fragile -- more so than Efke's, or Polaroid Type 55,
both notoriously soft, but neither susceptible of
this sort of marking -- then that says a lot about
the film.

 

[RobertV]

Further you should take notice of the Foma recommendation of development and wash procedure, not Ilford.

http://www.fotohuisrovo.nl/documentatie/F_pan_200_en.pdf



Especially on the following:
Washing: The film should be washed in running water: for 30 minutes and 15 minutes
the temperature of water being below 15 oC and over 15 oC respectively.
It is recommended to finish the processing with the film being rinsed in distilled water,
or dipped in a wetting agent solution.

So NO squeegee.

Every mechanical contact on any wet emulsion is a risk of scratches. And indeed Fomapan 200 is with the Efke emulsions softer then a regular film of Ilford. Following the wrong procedure prescripted by the typical manufacturer is causing problems.

 

[Stregone]

Is 1200 dpi fine enough to see the scratches on the film? I only scan to post on the web, so I don't make crazy huge scans. I have a dozen or so rolls of foma 100 and 400 to shoot and i'd like to keep track and see if I am getting this. I have shot, developed, and scanned one roll so far and didn't notice any marks. My camera is a Bronica SQ-A.

 

[Rolleiflexible]

Every mechanical contact on any wet emulsion is a risk of scratches. And indeed Fomapan 200 is with the Efke emulsions softer then a regular film of Ilford. Following the wrong procedure prescripted by the typical manufacturer is causing problems.

Never seen a mark on my Efke film
in rolls or sheets. Not once.

Robert, you are just not dealing with
the reality of what we are seeing on
the film. Go back up and look at the
marks on the film in the photos posted
at the top of this thread. Do they look
like scratch marks to you?

 

[mikebarger]

All reports are send to Foma and behind the curtains a lot of things are checked out now.

By chance have you read/seen the Wizard of OZ? A lot was going on behind the curtains there too.

Sanders, hope I'm wrong, Robert is starting to sound like it has to be the customers fault. Glad Foma doesn't make brake parts.

Mike

 

[Philippe-Georges]

Let’s talk scratches again.

I finally got the time to scan two negatives clearly showing these d***d scratches.
As you can see they come in regular waves, transverse to the length of the film, about 1 to 1,5 cm long with in intermediate distant of about 3 cm, over the whole breadth of the film. It looks to me that the distance and the length is the same as the piece of tape used to stick the film on the backing paper.
Imagine the film rolled, then try to locate the tape, you can feel the tape due to the little thickness of the roll, so, you can locate tit. Well, the tape is on the very same location as you can see the scratches. There, were the tape is, the friction tension between the emulsion and the paper is the strongest. This can be motivated because there are scratches on the space in between the frames too.
What stroke me too, is that the scratches are getting more present towards the end of the film, what you see here, are the negatives number 8 and 9, numbers 1 and 2 are barely showing scratches .
The camera was a Hasselblad 500C/M and a recently (two weeks), by a factory recognised repairmen, CLA’ed A12 film back. The film is FOMAPAN 400, all tough the name exposed on the film is “ULTRA 400”.
This was the last time I shot FOMA…

Philippe

 

[RobertV]

Is 1200 dpi fine enough to see the scratches on the film? I only scan to post on the web, so I don't make crazy huge scans. I have a dozen or so rolls of foma 100 and 400 to shoot and i'd like to keep track and see if I am getting this. I have shot, developed, and scanned one roll so far and didn't notice any marks. My camera is a Bronica SQ-A.

There are thousands of users of these films without any problem and you can see it on a medium format 1200dpi scan.

So if you do not see anything it's not there. The problem seems to be related to a camera tight loading system so minimized to some cameras only.

Fomapan 200 can not be involved anymore because the production is ceased already for almost 6 months and the film can not produced anymore so is obselete and also removed from the Foma website.

So the actual problem is Fomapan 100 and Fomapan 400 in 120 roll film format in combination with a tight loading system. The focus is on the backing paper and/or the self adhesive strip.

Customers who are squeeging their films should be noticed that this is not allowed on these films as noted in the Fomapan data sheets. But this is not specific on Fomapan films.

 

[Philippe-Georges]

There are thousands of users of these films without any problem and you can see it on a medium format 1200dpi scan.

So if you do not see anything it's not there. The problem seems to be related to a camera tight loading system so minimized to some cameras only.

Fomapan 200 can not be involved anymore because the production is ceased already for almost 6 months and the film can not produced anymore so is obselete and also removed from the Foma website.

So the actual problem is Fomapan 100 and Fomapan 400 in 120 roll film format in combination with a tight loading system. The focus is on the backing paper and/or the self adhesive strip.

Customers who are squeeging their films should be noticed that this is not allowed on these films as noted in the Fomapan data sheets. But this is not specific on Fomapan films.

Dear Robert,

I do admire and respect your loyalty to the brand you trade!

In the 30 years I shoot with Hasselblad, only FOMAPAN (400) has shown this issue (see my latest post above). I shot all kinds and brands of film, I never struggled with this issue.
I do remember the Ektachrome Panther, who, in the beginning, was prone to pressure fog, but NOT in the Hasselblad, only in the Technorama, that’s all. To anticipate the issue due to the loading system, I had my film-backs CLA’d and trimmed (and paid for it), which apparently did not solve the problem. I did this because I liked the way FOMAPAN translated the subject in to an image, regardless the rather present grain whit witch I could live. Only the persistent issue of the scratches made me turn away from this emulsion.
One can hardly state that, knowing this, it is the behaviour of the customer that has to be changed instead of the product. Unless that this product is so exceptionally special that an even special handling and care is imposed.
I treated FOMAPAN the way I was used to do with all the other films, witch is, to my humble opinion, rather normal.
I refuse to blame the loading system of my camera which is, BTW, among the most professional ones. And if the camera is really to be blamed, then Victor Hasselblad could not design and build camera’s that can handle all the worlds films.

This concludes this case for me, it is up to Foma Bohemia now.

No hard feelings,

Philippe

P.S. the above scanning is 150 dpi

 

[fotch]

I have read enough! This film is meant to be used in an old box camera. :rolleyes:

 

[Rolleiflexible]

There are thousands of users of these films without any problem and you can see it on a medium format 1200dpi scan.

So if you do not see anything it's not there. The problem seems to be related to a camera tight loading system so minimized to some cameras only.

Fomapan 200 can not be involved anymore because the production is ceased already for almost 6 months and the film can not produced anymore so is obselete and also removed from the Foma website.

So the actual problem is Fomapan 100 and Fomapan 400 in 120 roll film format in combination with a tight loading system. The focus is on the backing paper and/or the self adhesive strip.

Customers who are squeeging their films should be noticed that this is not allowed on these films as noted in the Fomapan data sheets. But this is not specific on Fomapan films.

With all due respect, you do not know
what you are talking about. You have
no basis for attributing the problem to
a "tight loading system." None at all.

Moreover, could you define what you
mean by a "tight loading system"? How
is a Rolleiflex TLR a "tight" system? What
qualifies as a "loose" system appropriate
for use with Foma films? How do you
distinguish one from the other?

What you are telling us, in other words,
is (1) Foma is not an appropriate film for
use with the most popular medium-format
cameras, and (2) Foma films are not made
to a standard amenable to processing by
methods commonly accepted and followed
throughout the Anglo-American community
of photographers.

So, Robert, you win -- it's our fault, not
Foma's. But in winning the argument (by
redefining the rules) you've lost the marketing
war for Foma. Why on God's earth should
anyone now use Foma, now that you've
established that their films are not suitable
for use in Hasselblads and Rolleiflexes, and
are too delicate to be touched in any way
during processing, unlike Kodak and Ilford
films?

 

[Philippe-Georges]

With all due respect, you do not know
what you are talking about. You have
no basis for attributing the problem to
a "tight loading system." None at all.

Moreover, could you define what you
mean by a "tight loading system"? How
is a Rolleiflex TLR a "tight" system? What
qualifies as a "loose" system appropriate
for use with Foma films? How do you
distinguish one from the other?

What you are telling us, in other words,
is (1) Foma is not an appropriate film for
use with the most popular medium-format
cameras, and (2) Foma films are not made
to a standard amenable to processing by
methods commonly accepted and followed
throughout the Anglo-American community
of photographers.

So, Robert, you win -- it's our fault, not
Foma's. But in winning the argument (by
redefining the rules) you've lost the marketing
war for Foma. Why on God's earth should
anyone now use Foma, now that you've
established that their films are not suitable
for use in Hasselblads and Rolleiflexes, and
are too delicate to be touched in any way
during processing, unlike Kodak and Ilford
films?

Thank you, Sanders, you putted it in better English than I ever could as a non native speaker.
Anyway, on the other hand, the FOMABROM FB paper is very good indeed, honor to whom honor deserves.

Philippe

 

[Philippe-Georges]

I have read enough! This film is meant to be used in an old box camera. :rolleyes:

Are you absolutely sure about that?

 

[Aurelien]

PLEASE KEEP COOL EVERYBODY.
This thread is now going on sad ways, it's a pity.

This my official point of vue, and the way I won't quit.

I will keep trying to make Foma change their backing paper, and improve their conversion machines.

We can not serioulsy involve one's process as far as most of 120 roll films are affected, and it seems that 135 too.

Foma is actually searching for a good issue to this problem. They first tested emulsion, and it seems that it is not involved. If emulsion making is safe, they now have to check coating, and converting.

But following my own tests (that are very empiric, and do not prove anything but help to understand) it seems that the problem is absent when changing the backing paper. That could be due to two things:
- First, as Foma said, particles could be present between film and paper and provoke this marks. The presence of such particles in 35 mm cassettes, to my mind, could provoke marks aslo in 35 mm.
- Second, the backing paper is too rough and provoke, by itself, and in combination with a friction in the camera (so also depends on camera).

Another point: I received rollei films from a batch that was converted in Foma. Clearly, it was catastrophic ! Big scratches all along films. Rollei had to change the company that converts their films, and there are no problems now.

So, in conclusion, Foma MUST check all their converting process, and machines, and they MUST IMPROVE THEM.

I will write agin to Miss Hojna to tell that to her, now.

Aurelien,

French Foma Dealer.

 

[sandermarijn]

I shot two Foma 100 films in 135 this week: completely fine. 135 has a diiferent base and obviously no backing paper, so not a surprising result I guess. Still nice to be able to report this. I like the look of this film in 135 too.

[This is not science, one cannot judge on the basis of two films etc etc- I know all that, just reporting what I see...]

 

[Stregone]

I just got some arista EDU 120 film from freestyle. The iso 100 boxes have a yellow triangle in the right corner just above the "120" that is not there on my older boxes (or the iso 400 rolls in the same shipment).

 

[Aurelien]

Foma will have a break in production in this summer for upgrading machinery:
http://www.foma.cz/foma/dokumenty/HomeNovinkyDetail.asp?novinkaid=134

Hope issue will be fixed then!

 

[Tom Kershaw]

Aurelien,

Do you think 'new environmentally friendly technology' is bad news for the papers?

Tom

 

[Aurelien]

No I don't think so, because this involve ONLY converting machinery. This is what we received:
"Let me inform you about production break scheduled for July 2010 - the break in the finishing dept.
we plan in term from 5. till the 26.7.2010.
At that time FOMA will install new environment friendly technology"

I think it only concerns the finishing and cnverting machinery for films,and especially the 120 converting machine, that is the point of our problem. I don't about 135.
I think they will stop the old Forte converting machine, which is THE actual problem, and go back to their own machine, with improvments.

 

[Rick A]

I'm shooting Arista EDU Ultra in 4x5 and 120, and even respooling some of the 120 for a Duaflex II, and haven't had any problems (except ones I've created). It loads easily into my SS reels, and tray developes without scratches. I am going to shoot loads of this film. I love the price, the look and the feel, it fits right in with my 40's and 50's look that I try to attain. I think I am even willing to give up Acros 100 for it (maybe not entirely). I give it 3 thumbs up.

 

[jean_pierre d'or]

bonjour.
je suis tombé sur votre discutions en cherchant des renseignement sur "ultra" : la seule indication apparaissant sur le bord d'un film 120 Foma chargé dans un super ikonta 521/16.
ceci afin de savoir si c'était un 100 iso ,ou 200 iso ??.
j'avais perdu la boite et rien (pas même la marque !) n'apparait sur le papier !
Tout ceci pour vous confirmer que j'ai eu le même problème de micro rayures sur toute la surface du film.
le frottement du papier (trop abrasif) me semble la bonne explication aux vues de la finesse, la répartition, et la longueur de ces micros rayures.Il y a obligatoirement une différence de longueur parcourue entre le film et le papier dans un parcours en C et donc un déplacement relatif film/papier ( beaucoup moins dans un parcours en Z).
J'espère que mon Français traduit automatiquement sera compréhensible ?
Salutations
JP